Time for the PM to face hard facts and put people before party

Published on Wednesday 1 July 2009 19:54

ANOTHER day, another session of dissemblage and cover-up in the Commons over public expenditure and the state of the public finances. Both the government and the main opposition are locked into the politics of denial. The Conservatives seek to avoid allegations of substantial cuts in "front line" public services. But the more grotesque denial is that of the Prime Minister.

He at least has access to the Treasury books and thus no excuse for denying the necessity of spending cuts ahead if we are to avoid yet more borrowing.

Yesterday Mr Brown sought to avoid questions on spending reductions to rebalance the public finances and reduce debt. For the record, the forecast in the Budget was that the deficit will climb to 175 billion this year, or five times the level of two years ago. Last week the OECD warned that outstanding net debt will far exceed the government's own estimate of 1,370bn, or 76.2 per cent of GDP, by 2013-14.

Debt of this magnitude is unique in our peacetime history. It imposes a colossal burden on future taxpayers. And the absence of any clear plan to reduce it is little short of a wilful betrayal of responsibility. There is now barely a voter in the land who does not understand this. But the Prime Minister, incapable of uttering this truth, continues to duck the leadership now required of him. He believes he will win a political fight on public spending, a calculation impervious to the fact that the tax revenues to support his assertions are collapsing under the reality of a deeper than expected recession. Little wonder he fobs off questions on why he has delayed the next Spending Review until after the election.

What are voters left to believe? It lends strength to the suspicion that the government has effectively embarked on a scorched-earth policy of taking the UK's spending and borrowing to the utter limit, leaving a successor government with a nightmare legacy of tax rises and huge spending cuts. What might be the consequences? A tax package to raise 70bn – probably the minimum required to stabilise Britain's finances – might put four points on the rate of income tax, take VAT to 20 per cent, freeze personal allowances and tax thresholds, add five points to corporation tax and bring higher duties on the usual suspects such as tobacco, petrol and alcohol.

This would guarantee a relapse into recession. Moreover, this is a game being played out under the shadow of a warning from rating agency Standard & Poors which has only recently placed the UK on "negative watch" – an explicit signal that the country's triple-A rating could soon be downgraded. That would cause overseas investors to dump sterling, drive down the pound and force interest rates up to attract buyers of government debt. For the economy and the country, this would be a dire outcome. And far from guaranteeing the Prime Minister a "victory", there is every risk that this scorched-earth policy will explode in his face. If you play fire with the nation's finances, be ready to be burned.

Stayaway MSPs fail to show due respect

YESTERDAY saw the Queen visiting the Scottish Parliament to help celebrate its tenth birthday celebrations. The occasion also brought more than 140 children, 88 per cent of those born in Scotland on the day the parliament was reconvened in 1999. Some had travelled from as far afield as Ontario in Canada, New Jersey in the USA, Germany and the Faroe Islands.

Set against this, it should have been expected that only illness would have kept the MSPs away, but almost 50 of them stayed away, including eight out of 16 MSPs based in and around Edinburgh. Even allowing for illness and inability to attend due to official duties, this was a slighting response. Reasons given varied from being on holiday to moving office. Certainly, lack of early warning could not have been fairly blamed. First notification of the event was sent out in October last year and full details circulated in April.

The stayaways would have included the usual anti-monarchist mob from whom staying away would be the expected self-indulgent gesture. But this was an occasion to celebrate the tenth anniversary of devolution and the re-establishment of a Scottish parliament. Non-attendance thus implies not only a disrespect to the Queen, but to the institution for which many Scots had argued long and hard. And if the MSPs opt not to respect devolution and their own parliament, how do they regard the respect of others, on which Scotland's parliament ultimately rests?

Tale of two cities could spice up curry war

THE first balti-type curry – named after the flat-bottomed dish in which it is cooked – was invented in Birmingham by a immigrant named Mohammed Ajaib, in 1977. His signature dish proved so successful that the area of Birmingham between Sparkbrook, Balsall Heath and Moseley has been christened the Balti Triangle. Indeed, the balti is now a staple of Indian restaurants across the UK, so much so that many people do not realise it is not of Indian origin. But now Birmingham council has decided to take legal action to stop restaurants outside the city using the balti name.

Whether Brum's legal action will succeed is another matter. Balti is more a style of cooking than a specific dish, so trademarking it will be difficult. But if the city does snatch the balti title, it could provoke retaliation. The chicken tikka masala served in this country – which the late Robin Cook termed our "true British national dish" – actually originated in Glasgow in the 1960s, when an enterprising Bangladeshi chef improvised by adding a tin of Campbell's tomato soup, yoghurt and some spices to the dry Indian version. Some 23 million tikka masalas are served every year.

If Birmingham wins the balti name, Glasgow will have every right to want the phrase "authentic Glasgow tikka masala" on its restaurant menus.